Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Impak Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd on 13 July, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No. E/2502/2004-Mum. (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. P-III/45/2004 dated 17/05/2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Pune-III ) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) ============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :
authorities?
============================================================= Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III :
Appellant VS M/s. Impak Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd.
:
Respondent Appearance Shri A.K. Prabhakar, Superintendent (A.R.) for Appellant Shri Rehman for respondent CORAM:
Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President
Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical)
Date of hearing : 13/07/2012
Date of decision : 13/07/2012
ORDER NO.
Per : S.S. Kang
Heard both sides.
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand beyond the normal period of limitation on the ground that allegation of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty sustainable against respondent.
3. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the issue relating to excisability of the process of profile cutting itself was in doubt even at the higher level of the department, it would not be proper to invoke the extended period and clamp the levy of duty for the extended period.
4. The revenue filed this appeal on the ground that some other manufacturers have taken up the matter with the Revenue regarding the excisability of profile cutting and the present respondents has not raised this issue. Therefore, the demand by invoking the extended period is sustainable.
5. We find that there was confusion regarding excisability of profile cutting during the period in dispute, the revenue department. Therefore we find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby Commissioner (Appeals), we set aside the demand for beyond the normal period of limitation. Appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated in court) (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President Sm ??
??
??
??
3